ライフサイエンスコーパス: biofilm

1 e (i.e., surface, middle and interior of the biofilm).

2 se as a requirement for the development of a biofilm.

3 ia compared to that in endometrium absent of biofilm.

4 antibiotic therapy, due to the formation of biofilm.

5 and effectively inhibit formation of fungal biofilm.

6 te three filler materials for packing fungus biofilm.

7 ling and root planing (SRP) to remove dental biofilm.

8 in the bulk water and were unaffected in the biofilm.

9 tem in S. sanguinis SK36, produced a fragile biofilm.

10 ability and the capacity of bacteria to form biofilms.

11 g redox gradients as they exist in microbial biofilms.

12 was determined for 2- and 4-day multispecies biofilms.

13 ited number of cells in stratified layers of biofilms.

14 accumulation of a bacterial pathogen within biofilms.

15 e in surface-associated communities known as biofilms.

16 berries inoculated with food-borne bacterial biofilms.

17 cellular polymers that are utilized to form biofilms.

18 emove Staphylococcus aureus surgical implant biofilms.

19 g (aciduric) bacterial species within dental biofilms.

20 id C. albicans accumulation in mixed-species biofilms.

21 e are often first observed in stream benthic biofilms.

22 demonstrated that SepA-related induction of biofilm accumulation resulted from enhanced Aap processi

23 ctive anticaries resins with therapeutic and biofilm acid-inhibiting properties has the potential to

24 technology, targeting antifungal efflux and biofilm adhesion factors.

25 ions of most sRNAs had very little effect on biofilm, although deletion of hfq, encoding an RNA chape

26 ant surfaces using an in vitro three-species biofilm and human plaque samples.

27 um, nitrite, and nitrate profiles within the biofilm and in the bulk, a 1-dimensional nitrifying biof

28 Roles for abundant OTUs identified in the biofilm and inoculum cultures were highlighted on the ba

29 and illustrate the complex interplay between biofilm and LL-37 in skin of AD patients, possibly leadi

30 st classical antibiotics, the formation of a biofilm and the difficulty to eradicate it.

31 h an osmotic pressure difference between the biofilm and the external environment.

32 mbrane alterations and permeabilization, and biofilm and vesicle formation is dependent on the amino

33 letions in each of these genes produced more biofilm and water-insoluble glucan than SK36.

34 be useful as therapeutic agents by degrading biofilms and attenuating virulence.

35 nterrelationships that develop within dental biofilms and between biofilms and the host.

36 ts based on studies that evaluated microbial biofilms and entire microbiomes to establish their simil

37 the pathogens in sonicate fluid comprised of biofilms and other materials dislodged from the surfaces

38 s would also have the ability to form mature biofilms and the bpsABCD locus would serve a key role in

39 t develop within dental biofilms and between biofilms and the host.

40 ce were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms and, akin to Nod2(-/-) mice, were found to exhi

41 Dental plaque is a complex multispecies biofilm, and is a direct precursor of periodontal diseas

42 the interaction among disinfectant residual, biofilms, and L. pneumophila, which provides guidelines

43 Biofilm antibiotic efficacy studies should be assessed u

44 ial behaviors at different layers within the biofilm architecture (i.e., surface, middle and interior

45 corresponding bacterial behaviors within the biofilm architecture at a global scale has been limited,

46 minoglycoside antibiotics and contributes to biofilm architecture through ionic interactions with ext

47 ssary and sufficient to give rise to complex biofilm architecture, whereas dimerization of BslA is re

48 Biofilms are a collective mode of bacterial life in whic

49 toxin production and the propensity to form biofilms are important factors in pathogenesis.

50 Biofilms are microbial communities embedded within an ex

51 Bacterial biofilms are recalcitrant to antibiotic therapy and a ma

52 dividual, free-floating planktonic bacteria, biofilms are surface-attached communities of slow- or no

53 Biofilms are thin layers of bacteria embedded within a s

54 d the uptake of arginine by the cells of the biofilm as well as the metabolites generated.

55 M. tuberculosismmpL11 mutants have altered biofilms associated with lower levels of mycolic acid wa

56 could have a dramatic impact on persistent, biofilm-associated bacterial infection treatments.

57 These included the biofilm-associated bhp gene, the antiseptic resistance q

58 Chronic biofilm-associated infections caused by Staphylococcus a

59 low containing a disinfectant to release the biofilm-associated L. pneumophila from these two types o

60 y Streptococcus gordonii (Sg) in a simulated biofilm at 50 mum above its surface in the presence of 1

61 r understanding of how fluid flow influences biofilm biology since turbulence will likely disrupt met

62 therapies that specifically target S. mutans biofilms but do not disturb the overall oral microbiome

63 d prevented L. pneumophila from recolonizing biofilms, but M. avium gene numbers increased by 0.14-0.

64 Biofilm cadaverine, lysine, and other amino acid (AA) co

65 l signaling generated by a Bacillus subtilis biofilm can attract distant cells.

66 ation of biotransformation rate constants in biofilm can be significantly biased if the boundary laye

67 Our results suggest that sewer biofilms can enhance the biotransformation kinetics of m

68 eased nutrients in both the stream water and biofilms caused by anthropogenic land use had severe imp

69 rowth, and by facilitating the transition of biofilm cells to a highly tolerant state.

70 e reaction, that targets both planktonic and biofilm cells.

71 tonic bacteria but not metabolically dormant biofilm cells.

72 Bacteria residing within biofilm communities can coordinate their behavior throug

73 promoted clearance of H. parainfluenzae from biofilm communities during OM infection.

74 pically involve bacterial persistence within biofilm communities that are highly resistant to host cl

75 We discovered that two Bacillus subtilis biofilm communities undergoing metabolic oscillations ca

76 ressing E. coli under simulated multispecies biofilm conditions because polyvalence enhanced PEf1 pro

77 Biofilms confer many advantages, including protection fr

78 n Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is an important biofilm constituent critical for bacterial virulence and

79 tegrated sensors) and the enhanced growth of biofilms (crucial for direct monitoring) is studied.

80 is demonstrated, to enhance direct microbial biofilm cultivation on their surface and to improve the

81 presence of S. mutans influences C. albicans biofilm development and coexistence.

82 reptococcal regulatory peptide that controls biofilm development and pneumococcal pathogenesis.

83 the orphan catalytic subunit CcoN4 in colony biofilm development and respiration in the opportunistic

84 tion of a newly-defined, five-stage model of biofilm development and the mechanisms required for each

85 egulator hybrid SagS plays a central role in biofilm development by enabling the switch from the plan

86 Thus, pili are dispensable for biofilm development in this cyanobacterium, in contrast

87 of the mature 68-aa peptide potently blocks biofilm development on solid substrates in multiple medi

88 arize our current understanding of S. aureus biofilm development, focusing on the description of a ne

89 adhesion and that this is required to begin biofilm development.

90 ctericidal effect and may be used to prevent biofilm development.

91 ispecies biofilms were grown on pegs using a biofilm device and studied by scanning electron microsco

92 Biofilm dispersal is a genetically programmed response e

93 icate that the stringent response stimulates biofilm dispersal under nutrient limitation by coordinat

94 ies to treat chronic infection by exploiting biofilm dispersal.

95 have found new biomedical applications, from biofilm disruption to protection against neurodegenerati

96 ctive cell growth, matrix production enables biofilm-dwelling bacterial cells to establish an osmotic

97 ellular adhesion may play a role in favoring biofilm dynamics.

98 cs remains a fundamental question concerning biofilm dynamics.

99 the flow of nutrients, when performing anti-biofilm efficacy evaluations.

100 O1 mutants show that, unlike solid-supported biofilms, elastic interfacial film formation occurs in t

101 The mechanism of biofilm electrogenesis is suggested to involve an intrac

102 ms, including microbial self-organization in biofilms, embryogenesis, wound healing, and cancer metas

103 Minimal biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) was determined

104 ibit differential abilities to inhibit early biofilm events and reduce biomass from mature biofilms i

105 noclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Psl biofilm exopolysaccharide exhibit protective activity ag

106 motic pressure within the biofilm, promoting biofilm expansion and physical exclusion of non-matrix p

107 rring at the interface demonstrated that the biofilm flows like a viscous liquid under high flow velo

108 Biofilm fluid-like behavior may have important implicati

109 The dormant cells can repopulate the biofilms following alleviation of antibiotic treatments.

110 re present in the anode suspension and anode biofilm for the two operating modes, aerobic bacteria we

111 n about resistance of skin microbiota in the biofilm form to antimicrobial decontamination, and there

112 gtfP gene expression, glucan production and biofilm formation ability that was lost in DeltaciaR, in

113 sensing components, and proteins involved in biofilm formation all showed reduced expression.

114 The addition of mycelia favored biofilm formation and dramatically enhanced the minerali

115 ted, inactivation of Synpcc7942_2071 enables biofilm formation and suppresses the planktonic growth o

116 molecular mechanisms that control S. aureus biofilm formation and the basis for the recalcitrance of

117 om secondary metabolism, ScmR also represses biofilm formation and transcriptionally activates ATP sy

118 omoserine lactone (3O-C12-HSL), that promote biofilm formation and virulence via interbacterial commu

119 Chronic bacterial infections associated with biofilm formation are often difficult to resolve without

120 approaches in modulating quorum sensing and biofilm formation as a nonlethal method, as well as narr

121 strointestinal tract may control V. cholerae biofilm formation at physiological levels.

122 Biofilm formation at the site of infection reduces antim

123 The demonstrated inhibition of biofilm formation by a host-directed protein bacterial t

124 st genes that are upregulated in response to biofilm formation by B. subtilis.

125 We show that biofilm formation by Bacillus subtilis, Lactobacillus rh

126 ing mechanisms for bacterial persistence and biofilm formation by H. parainfluenzae and knowledge abo

127 hat the SaeRS TCRS also governs fermentative biofilm formation by positively influencing AtlA activit

128 -galactosamine and play an important role in biofilm formation by these organisms.

129 The CA was less susceptible to biofilm formation compared to the PA due to its lower su

130 mouse model of orthopedic implant-associated biofilm formation found that both SaeRS and SrrAB govern

131 Thus, far, bacterial biofilm formation had only been studied after short-term

132 We demonstrated that YeeJ promotes biofilm formation in different settings through expositi

133 The Cell wall-anchored protein Aap promotes biofilm formation in S. epidermidis, independently from

134 ous polyamine content to the cell to control biofilm formation in the aquatic environment and within

135 ure of a late stage biofilm, suggesting that biofilm formation is severely hampered in the natural en

136 currently available to prevent the notorious biofilm formation issue.

137 SaeRS-dependent biofilm formation occurred in response to changes in cel

138 te cell wall hydrolase genes and disrupt the biofilm formation of MRSA clearly indicated that Inh2-B1

139 ation greatly reduces bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation of two most common pathogens responsib

140 reduce the rate of P. mirabilis crystalline biofilm formation on catheters, and increase the time ta

141 ised of septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and biofilm formation on the implants in the surgical legs c

142 Similarly, less biofilm formation on the NF membrane coupon (without per

143 occus mutans metabolizes sucrose to initiate biofilm formation on the tooth surface and consequently

144 The aim of the present study is to compare biofilm formation on zirconia and titanium implant surfa

145 c-di-GMP levels that then regulate genes for biofilm formation or for swarming motility-the output ph

146 (FnBPA) also contributed to the fermentative biofilm formation phenotype.

147 es to generate a deeper understanding of the biofilm formation process in bacteria.

148 results suggest that CfcR is a key player in biofilm formation regulation by the Rsm proteins in P. p

149 that c-di-GMP can regulate both motility and biofilm formation through a single effector in this surf

150 s an exogenous cue that inhibits V. cholerae biofilm formation through the NspS-MbaA signaling system

151 increased C. jejuni's growth, motility, and biofilm formation under microaerobic (5% O2) conditions.

152 , which is known to be severely defective in biofilm formation when grown as single species.

153 ve changes in liquid media growth, motility, biofilm formation, and acute insect virulence, but not i

154 s involved in mating, filamentous growth and biofilm formation, and also influences cAMP-regulated pr

155 nspecific opsonophagocytic killing, enhanced biofilm formation, and increased adhesion to nasopharyng

156 d closed states is important for V. cholerae biofilm formation, as RbmA variants with switches that a

157 bit altered exoprotein production or altered biofilm formation, but it was attenuated for survival up

158 oxin production and promotes pilus-dependent biofilm formation, but no specific biological functions

159 pipes, inhibiting culturable Legionella and biofilm formation, but promoted Legionella growth in pip

160 ound microenvironment, promotes adhesion and biofilm formation, decreases bacterial killing by neutro

161 During biofilm formation, Escherichia coli and other Enterobact

162 ole levels significantly decreased motility, biofilm formation, exopolysaccharide production and viru

163 cterial surface colonization, a precursor to biofilm formation, only when planktonic bacterial inocul

164 s undergoes developmental changes leading to biofilm formation, sporulation and competence.

165 Antibiotic susceptibility, biofilm formation, Staphylococcal protein A (spa) typing

166 lonization and attenuates persister cell and biofilm formation, suggesting that mesalamine aids in di

167 of most antimicrobials against P. aeruginosa biofilm formation, which in turn depends on the presence

168 of respiratory processes elicited increased biofilm formation.

169 l, and protein was an influential factor for biofilm formation.

170 ever, little is known about its mechanism of biofilm formation.

171 nce bacterial adhesion, and propagation, and biofilm formation.

172 es, including the ability to alter bacterial biofilm formation.

173 that argB was essential for ciaR to regulate biofilm formation.

174 ls) for prevention of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation.

175 tion-dependent manner and were proficient in biofilm formation.

176 cy in infections associated with significant biofilm formation.

177 role in surface-sensing during swarming and biofilm formation.

178 genously supplied homoagmatine also restored biofilm formation.

179 tical for host cell adherence, invasion, and biofilm formation.

180 th PelB are also essential for PEL-dependent biofilm formation.

181 spermidine, but not homospermidine, restored biofilm formation.

182 t or more exposed during the early stages of biofilm formation.

183 mple, in host colonization, persistence, and biofilm formation.

184 ulence factor involved in immune evasion and biofilm formation.

185 bacterial attachment to surfaces but reduces biofilm formation.

186 Biofilm formation/removal was quantitated using confocal

187 pecies composition of mixed- Candida species biofilms formed by clinical isolates and laboratory stra

188 Biofilms formed by nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (N

189 all architecture and structural integrity of biofilms formed by NTHI and all other bacterial pathogen

190 a critical role in the development of mature biofilms formed by the sequenced laboratory strain of B.

191 e conducted a side-by-side comparison of the biofilm-forming abilities of the prototype laboratory st

192 ngly, the presence of S. mutans restored the biofilm-forming ability of C. albicans bcr1Delta mutant

193 ht be a common property of bacteria, as many biofilm-forming bacteria that are rod-shaped and motile

194 our findings may have implications for other biofilm-forming bacterial species.Most bacteria live in

195 teraction between Pseudomonas fluorescens, a biofilm-forming bacterium, and polysulfone (PSF) ultrafi

196 Using Pseudomonas fluorescens as a model biofilm-forming bacterium, we find significant increases

197 inity, among which some are thermo-epilithic biofilm-forming cyanobacteria.

198 rom smokers, but only lysine was depleted in biofilm from non-smokers.

199 All AAs were depleted in biofilm from smokers, but only lysine was depleted in bi

200 The laser removed biofilms from all surfaces, with CaP and SLA surfaces re

201 in sequences.Gram-negative bacteria assemble biofilms from amyloid fibres, which translocate across t

202 infection of Streptococcus mutans in plaque-biofilms from children affected with early-childhood car

203 These compounds also inhibited the biofilm growth by MRSA at high concentration.

204 Biofilm growth progresses through three genetically prog

205 The model is based on settling, biofilm growth, and ocean depth profiles for light, wate

206 uctive oxide, it is a non-ideal platform for biofilm growth.

207 esponse enabling bacterial cells to exit the biofilm in response to particular physiological or envir

208 ion, resulting in the formation of a fragile biofilm in Streptococcus sanguinis.

209 apeutic options for elimination of bacterial biofilm in the equine uterus.

210 cZ, a small RNA activator of RpoS, decreased biofilm in YESCA; only a portion of this defect could be

211 It can form recalcitrant biofilms in clinical and industrial settings.

212 Benthic biofilms in glacier-fed streams harbor diverse microorga

213 We discuss the potential role of these biofilms in ikaite column formation.

214 iofilm events and reduce biomass from mature biofilms in the presence of neutrophils.

215 in the matrix of many different monospecies biofilms in vitro, including some of those produced by o

216 ormation on staphopains present in S. aureus biofilms in vivo, and illustrate the complex interplay b

217 pharynx, and stool) as well as environmental biofilms, in order to better understand and prevent C. a

218 rginine was detected within the cells of the biofilms, indicating active uptake, and arginine catabol

219 so highly effective in eradicating S. aureus biofilm infection when used in a CLS rat central venous

220 ganism found in patients with oral thrush, a biofilm infection, there is an increasing incidence of o

221 eter lock solutions (CLSs) against S. aureus biofilm infections.

222 properties were shown to yield the greatest biofilm-inhibition effects.

223 Biofilms initiate when bacteria attach to a solid surfac

224 graphy (OCT) was used to visualise bacterial biofilms inside the nasogastric feeding tubes.

225 rial growth rates, we couple a model of flow-biofilm interaction with a game theory analysis.

226 ed sampling devices, cytobrushes may disrupt biofilms leading to variation in VM composition.

227 h levels of c-di-GMP are associated with the biofilm lifestyle, c-di-GMP hydrolysing phosphodiesteras

228 al proinflammatory products is impaired when biofilm lysine falls below the minimal content of normal

229 Biofilm lysine was 0.19 +/- 0.10 and 0.20 +/- 0.09 mumol

230 lant infection animal model, WLBU2 decreased biofilm mass as compared to control, untreated samples.

231 nning electron microscopy confirm removal of biofilm matrix components within 1 minute of AMF exposur

232 Selective permeability of a biofilm matrix to some drugs has resulted in the develop

233 lular environment for incorporation into the biofilm matrix, we hypothesized that NTHI additionally u

234 are strongly associated with a protein-rich biofilm matrix.

235 multaneously kill bacteria and dismantle the biofilm matrix.

236 identifies the mechanism behind Aap-mediated biofilm maturation, and also demonstrates a novel role f

237 ilys-2 activity accounts for biofilm-mediated resistance to Pseudomonas aeruginosa ki

238 Induction of mtl-1 and hsp-70 promotes biofilm-mediated thermotolerance.

239 here are no quantitative models to study how biofilm might be transferred into sterile tissue/implant

240 abling the switch from the planktonic to the biofilm mode of growth, and by facilitating the transiti

241 agS and BfiS contribute to the switch to the biofilm mode of growth, but not to the tolerant state.

242 Using a newly established haploid biofilm model of C. albicans, we found that S. mutans au

243 and in the bulk, a 1-dimensional nitrifying biofilm model was developed and calibrated.

244 f the mature in vitro Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm model, revealing contemporaneous yet altered bac

245 Compared to biofilm, neutrophils generate higher levels of reactive

246 When exposed to C. glabrata biofilms, neutrophils also release NETs, but significant

247 the inflammatory response to known microbial biofilms observed in humans.

248 it does not rescue the maturation-deficient biofilms of a DeltagroEL1 mutant, thereby differentiatin

249 nd in combination was evaluated against lawn biofilms of bioluminescent strains of Staphylococcus aur

250 compositional and functional changes in the biofilms of both S. pneumoniae and S. aureus.

251 ks, as do the mass spectra of membrane grown biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

252 ish when carcasses are present and 7-24% via biofilm on bones after soft tissue decomposition.

253 s size-selective removal: the formation of a biofilm on the microplastics (biofouling).

254 P. aeruginosa formed antibiotic resistant biofilms on 3-D cells without affecting cell viability.

255 roteus mirabilis forms extensive crystalline biofilms on indwelling urethral catheters that block uri

256 r molecular species signifying initiation of biofilms on membrane surfaces, demonstrated by specific

257 ice: whether to stay in one place and form a biofilm, or to leave it in search of better conditions.

258 central carbon and amino acid metabolisms to biofilm pH homeostasis.

259 These insights into biofilm-phage interactions have broad-ranging implicatio

260 acy as the 80 ppm CIP alone treatment in the biofilm prevention test.

261 Recently, polysaccharides extracted from biofilms produced by species of the Burkholderia cepacia

262 arable nonspecific opsonophagocytic killing, biofilm production, and adhesion to nasopharyngeal cells

263 ae increases the osmotic pressure within the biofilm, promoting biofilm expansion and physical exclus

264 in this cyanobacterium, in contrast to their biofilm-promoting function in type IV pili-producing het

265 We further observed that MgSAP1 has anti-biofilm properties against S. aureus.

266 ophic ammonium oxidation in membrane-aerated biofilm reactors (MABRs) can make treatment of ammonium-

267 tingly, presence in mixed versus monospecies biofilms reduced susceptibility to amphotericin B for C.

268 ed by mathematical modeling, we confirm that biofilms resolve this conflict by switching from in-phas

269 though the specific gasotransmitter for this biofilm response is not known, we find that addition of

270 obial agents after attachment or within oral biofilms, resulting in their disruption.

271 PA14 colony biofilms show a profound morphogenic response to phenazi

272 o inhibit the activity of Gtfs and S. mutans biofilms, signifying the specificity of the lead compoun

273 ased therapies may offer potential to target biofilm specific components for host-cell mediated bacte

274 The interaction between biofilm structure and hydrodynamics remains a fundamenta

275 intracellular redox state of cells in anoxic biofilm subzones.

276 played the typical signature of a late stage biofilm, suggesting that biofilm formation is severely h

277 ming bacterial species.Most bacteria live in biofilms, surface-attached communities encased in an ext

278 es, such as catheters, forming drug-tolerant biofilms that resist killing by the immune system.

279 n shown to enhance bacterial accumulation in biofilms, the influence of S. mutans on fungal biology i

280 iated L. pneumophila from these two types of biofilms, the L. pneumophila release kinetics values fro

281 e samples were all colonized by multispecies biofilms, these latest displaying different amounts of a

282 s fabricated and its feasibility for optical biofilm thickness monitoring is demonstrated.

283 Localization and adherence of the biofilm to the flea foregut is essential for transmissio

284 ics values from predisinfected and untreated biofilms under flow condition were not statistically dif

285 The main contribution to biofilm versatility in response to physical forces is th

286 g dependence of the instability formation on biofilm viscosity explaining the different surface corru

287 In the present study, bacterial biofilm was visualized by electron microscopy at the sur

288 ampicin) in preventing Staphylococcus aureus biofilms was investigated using Microtiter Well Plates (

289 Multispecies biofilms were grown on pegs using a biofilm device and s

290 Preformed biofilms were not significantly reduced by NucB treatmen

291 The DFR grown biofilms were significantly more tolerant to the antibio

292 hape affects the dense communities, known as biofilms, where many microbes live.

293 ial processes; and the analysis of bacterial biofilms, where nonspecific methods based on physical an

294 anic carbon in both stream water and benthic biofilms, which are closely related to the differences i

295 Bacteria often live in biofilms, which are microbial communities surrounded by

296 iple media conditions and disrupts preformed biofilms, which are resistant to current antifungal agen

297 tudy has utilized RNA derived from bacterial biofilms, which have potentially higher rRNA:mRNA ratios

298 ive against preformed mixed- Candida species biofilms while amphotericin B was potent.

299 e locked in either of the two states lead to biofilms with altered architecture and structural integr

300 biochar-amended sand bearing DOC-cultivated biofilms would achieve enhanced TOrC attenuation due to